The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would be affected financially by reason of his obligation to pay sums to the Authority.
Held: The Secretary of State is not to be made party to judicial review proceedings even though he would be the ultimate payer. Though a party directly affected by the claim may be joined as an interested party, Lord Keith said: ‘That a person is directly affected by something connotes that he is affected without the intervention of any intermediate agency. In the present case, if the applications for judicial review are successful the Secretary of State will not have to pay housing benefit to the applicants either directly or through the agency of the local authority. What will happen is that up to 95% will be added to the subsidy paid by the Secretary of State to the local authority after the end of the financial year. The Secretary of State would certainly be affected by the decision, and it may be said that he would inevitably or necessarily be affected. But he would in my opinion, be only indirectly affected by reason of his collateral obligation to pay subsidy to the local authority.’ The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on such judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.
The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.
Judges:
Lord Keith
Citations:
Times 11-Jul-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1103
Statutes:
Rules of the Supreme Court O 53 r593)
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Rent Officer Service and Another Ex Parte Kelly CA 18-Apr-1995
The Secretary of State was not entitled to be served with notice of all Judicial Review applications on benefits. He was not sufficiently directy connected, . .
Cited by:
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Cited – Nemeti and Others v Sabre Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Dec-2013
The court considered the power of courts to allow substitution of a new party after the expiration of the limitation period. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Administrative, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87193
